EuIdea

Subterms

    Latest story

    La Finlandia sulla strada della NATO: “Non è vero che siamo neutrali. Ma serve una riflessione sui tempi dell’adesione”

    by

    Bruxelles – Un processo che sembra apparentemente irreversibile. Dopo l’invasione russa dell’Ucraina, la Finlandia si sta spingendo sulla strada dell’adesione all’Organizzazione del Trattato dell’Atlantico del Nord (NATO), una decisione che sarebbe epocale, ancor più se accompagnata dall’allineamento anche della vicina Svezia, e che fino a due mesi fa non sembrava nemmeno lontanamente plausibile. Per la prima volta dal secondo dopoguerra a oggi Helsinki potrebbe abbandonare il tradizionale non allineamento militare, che emergerà con più certezza dal confronto tra le forze politiche attualmente in corso all’Eduskunta (il Parlamento monocamerale) sul rapporto strategico sulla sicurezza del Paese, presentato due settimane fa dall’esecutivo guidato da Sanna Marin.
    Un dibattito che si imposta su un cambiamento di percezione del pericolo russo e di priorità sulle questioni della difesa da parte dei cittadini finlandesi e sulle riflessioni sul breve e medio periodo da parte del mondo accademico. Come confermato a Eunews da Juha Jokela, direttore del programma di ricerca sull’Unione Europea al Finnish Institute of International Affairs, nel corso di un’intervista sul bivio presente per la storia del Paese e sugli scenari futuri di una possibile adesione della Finlandia – e della Svezia – sullo scacchiere geopolitico baltico ed europeo.
    Eunews: Dottor Jokela, che idea si è fatto della svolta finlandese sulla questione NATO?
    Jokela: “Prima di tutto bisogna puntualizzare che non è corretto parlare di neutralità della Finlandia, come leggo spesso sugli organi di informazione. Piuttosto possiamo dire che non siamo schierati militarmente, anche se ci siamo legati all’Organizzazione del Trattato dell’Atlantico del Nord con una cooperazione rafforzata e da decenni va avanti la politica di approfondimento dei rapporti con i partner. La Finlandia ha sempre concepito l’opzione di aderire alla NATO, se lo scenario internazionale di sicurezza fosse cambiato. E ora, dopo l’invasione russa dell’Ucraina, vediamo chiaramente questa possibilità, ecco perché è possibile affrontare questo discorso a livello di dibattito pubblico nazionale”.
    E: A proposito, come viene percepita dalla popolazione questa possibile scelta?
    J: “Quello a cui stiamo assistendo è un vero cambiamento di posizione proprio a partire dalla popolazione finlandese, tra il prima e il dopo lo scoppio della guerra in Ucraina. Normalmente il supporto nei confronti della NATO si attestava attorno al 20 per cento dei cittadini, ma, secondo quanto emerge dai sondaggi, dopo due giorni dall’invasione russa è salito al 50 e ora è tra il 60 e il 70 per cento. La popolazione si sta interrogando ed esprimendo sulla questione, adesso è arrivato il momento della scelta della sfera politica, a livello governativo, parlamentare e presidenziale”.
    E: Proprio ora al Parlamento è in corso il dibattito tra le forze politiche. Cosa si aspetta ne possa emergere?
    J: “L’unica potenziale discussione non è tanto se aderire alla NATO, quanto piuttosto se questo processo si stia sviluppando troppo rapidamente. Dobbiamo considerare seriamente le conseguenze sul piano della sicurezza, i pro e i contro di questa scelta sugli affari esteri del Paese. Il dibattito in Parlamento è stato voluto dall’esecutivo stesso per avere l’appoggio del potere legislativo sulla scelta, il white paper del governo non offre nessun suggerimento sulla politica da adottare proprio perché chiede una riflessione aperta tra partiti e deputati. Penso che un accordo sull’opinione del Parlamento sia una questione di settimane, non di mesi, e poi sarà affidata la decisione finale al governo e al presidente”.
    Da sinistra: la prima ministra della Svezia, Magdalena Andersson, e della Finlandia, Sanna Marin (Stoccolma, 13 aprile 2022)
    E: In caso di richiesta di adesione alla NATO da parte della Finlandia, quanto è probabile che la Svezia faccia altrettanto?
    J: “È evidente che la tensione militare in atto, iniziata già nel 2014, ha cambiato gli scenari di sicurezza per tutta la penisola scandinava. In questo periodo si sono strette le relazioni bilaterali tra Svezia e Finlandia in materia di difesa, con una cooperazione intensa anche sulla questione NATO. Proprio per il forte legame che si è creato, i due Paesi hanno canali diplomatici diretti per evitare che un cambiamento improvviso di posizioni di un partner vada a destabilizzare l’altro. Basti solo ricordare che quando a inizio marzo il presidente della Finlandia, Sauli Niinistö, è stato ospite dell’omologo statunitense, Joe Biden, durante l’incontro c’è stata una telefonata anche con la prima ministra svedese, Magdalena Andersson. Questa relazione riflette l’importanza strategica della stabilità nel Baltico, che ha un impatto anche su quella della regione artica, e nonostante Finlandia e Svezia stiano pensando alle proprie questioni di sicurezza nazionale, la loro decisione avrà un impatto significativo sullo scacchiere di tutta l’Europa”.
    E: È preoccupato per una possibile reazione dura da parte della Russia? Cosa rischiano Finlandia ed Europa?
    J: “Da un certo punto di vista, Helsinki è preparata per una minaccia militare diretta, già vediamo movimenti di truppe russe lungo il confine con la Finlandia, lungo 1.340 chilometri. Ma siamo più preoccupati per l’area grigia di un conflitto che contempli minacce ibride, come gli attacchi informatici, o l’invio forzato di persone ai confini. Evidentemente, ci sono implicazioni dirette su una possibile escalation di tensione con la Russia, ma l’eventuale decisione di aderire alla NATO è uno strumento legittimo di cooperazione con gli alleati transatlantici contro l’approccio aggressivo della Russia. Perché se è vero che non siamo neutrali, ma solo militarmente non schierati e già radicati nell’Alleanza, non va nemmeno dimenticato che nel caso di aggressione esterna per noi non si applica l’articolo 5 del Trattato del Nord Atlantico. Quello che afferma che un attacco contro un alleato è un attacco contro ogni componente dell’Alleanza”.

    Intervista a Juha Jokela, direttore del programma di ricerca sull’UE al Finnish Institute of International Affairs. “Stiamo assistendo a un cambiamento di posizione a partire dai cittadini. Ma la politica deve considerare seriamente le conseguenze sul piano della sicurezza del Paese” LEGGI TUTTO

    More stories

    • in Estera

      EU IDEA project, differentiation as a tool for European integration. Reynders: “But the rule of Law is the limit”

      Brussels – The last dance. The EU IDEA project has come to an end, with a final conference that presented the project’s results and discussed the theme of differentiation and integration among researchers, EU representatives and experts. The two-day event (April 20-21) was organized in Brussels, within the framework of EU IDEA – Integration and Differentiation for Effectiveness and Accountability: it addressed all the aspects of differentiated integration as a strategic choice, as the European Union is dealing with its manifold internal and external challenges.
      The European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, at the EU IDEA final conference in Brussels (credits: Federico Baccini)
      EU IDEA is a project funded by the European Commission under the Horizon2020 programme and led by Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) – with the participation of Eunews as media partner – and its aim is to deepen differentiation and integration issues, in order to find viable solutions to the current challenges that the EU is facing. This is even more valid following the Russian aggression of Ukraine, considering the necessity to improve the future European security order amid persistent fragmentation and divergence in the European integration project. However, “differentiation and flexibility have no place in certain specific areas, such as the respect of the key-values of the European Union”, the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, made it clear during his key-note speech.

      Human rights, rule of Law, solidarity, equality, independence of justice. “All Member States must align themselves with these key-principles, this is the commitment at the time of accession to the EU, not an imposition of the European Commission”, Reynders stressed, explaining why “we can work on differentiation, but not in the case of the respect of the rule of Law“. Inside and outside the EU (among those countries that want to be part of the Union), “there are many legislations and traditions, we are not asking to standardize all legal systems, but to apply the same principles for a common approach”. The Ukrainian crisis shows that “we must continue to commit in our values, if we want to be credible in the world and to demand respect for human rights from Russia“, the European Commissioner for Justice concluded.

      The final conference

      The Head of EU, politics and institutions programme at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) and EU IDEA project coordinator, Nicoletta Pirozzi, at the final conference in Brussels (credits: Federico Baccini)
      Moderated by Nicoletta Pirozzi, Head of EU, politics and institutions programme at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) and EU IDEA project coordinator, the conference first focused on how history and narratives around differentiation influence today’s state of the EU. “It emerged as a tool to cope with the different member States’ points of view and with growing heterogeneity”, Marco Brunazzo, Professor at University of Trento, stated, while his colleague at the University of Oslo John Erik Fossum pointed out that “it requires the development of some mechanisms to prevent weaknesses in the institutional system”. Differentiated integration “has two faces, one positive and one negative”, Ingrid Shikova, Professor at the Sofia University “St.Kliment Ohridski”, stressed, considering that “also in the future, who wants to do more, will do more, but who wants to do less, will do less”. Following the suggestion of Piero Tortola, Assistant Professor at the University of Groningen – “I wonder whether there is a return to unified integration narrative” – Jim Closs, TEPSA Secretary General, underlined that “every single crisis has shown that we need more integration and that basic key-values, such as the respect of rule of Law and human rights, are out of question“.
      Democracy and legitimacy are the cornerstones of a differentiated EU, in order to guarantee “an increase of effectiveness in inputs and responsibilities”, Matteo Bonomi, Research Fellow at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), stated. Funda Tekin, Director of the Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP), stressed that “the key for legitimation of differentiation policies is represented by the preferences of political elites and national public opinion” and her colleague Janis Emmanoulidis, Director of Studies, European Policy Centre (EPC), pointed out that “in the next future, we will have many more debates on these topics, because differences among Member States are becoming more evident and they have to be discussed”. Daniel Freund, Member of the European Parliament (Greens/EFA), warned that “there is not a real democratic choice on democracy, if you do not seat at the table for the decision-making process”.

      (credits: Federico Baccini)
      Differentiated integration is a process that considers also sustainability, security and solidarity inside and outside the European Union, as the Ukrainian crisis is demonstrating. “It urged a common approach in foreign affairs and military policies”, Sven Biscop, Director at the Egmont Institute, reported, echoed by Pol Morillas, Director at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB): “It emerged trust between EU leader and empathy towards Member States that could suffer because of this crisis”. Even if “unity in the response is happening now”, as Juha Jokela, Programme Director at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA), noted, “I am skeptical on how long it will last, because it concerns the effectiveness of external differentiated integration”. Eulalia Rubio, Senior Research fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute (JDI), stressed that “there are many cases of differentiation integration, that works differently inside and outside the EU”, while Reinhard Bütikofer, Member of the European Parliament (Greens/EFA), reminded that “unity in diversity is the very essence this concept”.

      At the very heart of the EU IDEA project there has always been the theme of Brexit, also considering the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). “Foreign affairs and security policies are out of it, with an impact even on the war in Ukraine”, Ian Bond, Director of the Centre for European Reform (CER), stated. Stefan Führing, Head of Unit of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement in the European Commission, shared the opinion that “in a broad sense, the cooperation between the two geopolitical actors is close to zero”, and Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive at the European Policy Centre (EPC), stressed that the TCA “is working in regulating the commercial trade, but it has a huge cost on many other aspects, such as the political cooperation”. This is “not a good relationship”, as shared also by Brigid Laffan, Former Director of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and Professor at the European University Institute: “We are talking about the weakest possibile solution, even if at the end Brexit has strengthen the unity inside the European Union”.

      Nicoletta Pirozzi with Herman Van Rompuy (on the right) and Vivien Schmidt (on the left) at the EU IDEA final conference (credits: Federico Baccini)
      Closing the final conference of the EU IDEA project, the coordinator Nicoletta Pirozzi summed up three years of studies and working papers: “Flexibility and differentiation can be a tool for European integration, but we have to set some limits and red lines, such as the respect of the rule of Law and the reinforcement of the EU institutions and the judicial power”. Herman Van Rompuy, President Emeritus of the European Council and EPC President, is sure that “we have to be more united on the values that characterize us” and that “there will be less space for differentiation in the future”, because “unanimity is very hard to achieve in many fields in periods of no crisis”. One of the very first turning points will be the French presidential election next Sunday (April 24): “If Marine Le Pen wins, there is the risk for differentiated disintegration on our values, the European budget and the supremacy of the EU law”, Vivien Schmidt, Professor at the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies and at the Boston University, warned with great concern.

      The European Commissioner for Justice took part to the final two-day conference of the EU IDEA project, led and coordinated by Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI): “All Member States must align themselves with our key-principles, if we want to be credible in the world”

    • in Estera

      EU IDEA project: differentiated integration has to be used “very carefully” in the Western Balkans

      Brussels – “We have to be very careful, because if we go too far with differentiated integration outside the European Union, it can bring to disintegration”. Dragan Tilev, State Counselor at the Secretariat for European Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia, is convinced that the path to EU accession for the Western Balkans has to follow “a new methodology, addressing all the open issues with more unity and pragmatism”.
      In a nutshell, these are the challenges for the European Union dealing with the enlargement process and with the future EU membership of the Western Balkans’ countries. Tilev gave a keynote speech during the conference Differentiated Integration and the Western Balkans, organized by the Institute for Democracy ‘Societas Civilis’ (IDSCS) today (Friday 17 December) within the framework of EU IDEA – Integration and Differentiation for Effectiveness and Accountability.
      EU IDEA is a project funded by the European Commission under the Horizon2020 programme and led by Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), with the participation of Eunews as media partner, EU IDEA addresses differentiation and integration issues in order to find viable solutions to the current challenges that the EU is facing.
      Dragan Tilev, State Counselor at the Secretariat for European Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia
      Opened by the remarks by Nenad Markovikj, Professor at Faculty of Law at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje and member of the Executive Board at Institute for Democracy ‘Societas Civilis’, the conference focused on the causes and consequences of this approach in the Western Balkans. “EU accession negotiations frameworks impose differentiated integration to the countries that are not still part of the European Union”, Tilev stated. “This is a fact and a necessity in times of crisis, also considering the different national interests”, he added. However, “nowadays the enlargement process is endangered by the disunity of the 27 Member States“, as the case of the accession of North Macedonia shows: “The different position of Bulgaria, which is blocking the starting of negotiations, is deteriorating the situation”. The European Union should also “accelerate on the negotiations with Serbia and Montenegro, play a key-role in the stabilization of Bosnia and push for visa liberalization in Kosovo”.
      Considering all these challenges, during the EU IDEA conference, Sandra Lavenex, Professor of European and International Politics at the University of Geneva, wondered “under which circumstances, differentiated integration can be effective and legitimate“, even if this is “something that will last in the future and will affect Western Balkans’ governments”. Denis Preshova, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje and Associate Researcher at IDSCS tried to focus on the positive aspects of this approach: “There is a nexus between pre-conditionality and the EU accession process, for example on the respect of Rule of Law”. Since the European Union “is becoming more active in reducing the heterogeneity of judicial systems in the enlargement process”, differentiated integration “is dealing with different judicial systems”.
      In this sense, at the end of the whole process, the scenario in the Western Balkans could be “more harmonized that the one in Eastern Europe”, Preshova underlined. Ivan Damjanovski, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, stressed that the concept of Rule of Law: “will lead to more uniformity of the judicial systems”. At the same time, “more integration is also needed, in particular through the collaboration with the EU agencies”, such as Frontex and Europol.
      Despite the current problematic issues, “we are talking about a privileged partnership”, Damjanovski stated. For Matteo Bonomi, Research Fellow at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), “the role of the EU on integration, migration and foreign policy is a complex puzzle“. For example, in the Western Balkans “we see more and more political alignment, but it does not mean that the economical and institutional situation goes hand in hand”.
      Senem Aydin-Düzgit, Professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the Sabancı University, recalled her intervention during another EU IDEA conference held in March: “External differentiated integration sometimes limits the flexibility in collaborative initiatives of EU Member States”, not only in the Western Balkans. “Formally, Turkey is a candidate to the EU accession, but the degree of cooperation depends on the level of political alignment with the partner“, Aydin-Düzgit concluded.

      At the conference of the Institute for Democracy ‘Societas Civilis’ (IDSCS) in Skopje, the EU IDEA panel discussed how differentiated integration affects the Western Balkans countries and their accession process

    • in Estera

      EU IDEA project: policy choices on migration have to face a “clear mismatch” between perception and reality in Europe

      Brussels – In the European Union there is a need of strong policy coordination, in order to face a “clear mismatch” between perception and reality on migration challenges. António Vitorino, Director General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) since 2018 and former European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs in the Prodi Commission (from 1999 to 2004), is convinced that “often policy choices address more the perception than reality, because it is harder to deal with the complexity of migration flows”.
      Vitorino gave a speech during the event Migration challenges in Europe, organized by the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs today (Friday 15 October), within the framework of EU IDEA – Integration and Differentiation for Effectiveness and Accountability. EU IDEA is a project funded by the European Commission under the Horizon2020 programme and led by Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), with the participation of Eunews as media partner, EU IDEA addresses differentiation and integration issues in order to find viable solutions to the current challenges that the EU is facing.
      Moderated by Blanca Garcés, Senior Research Fellow at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB) and opened by the Director Pol Morillas, today’s event was an opportunity to discuss current migration challenges and the forms of cooperation among EU Member States. The debate addressed many recent crisis: the unstable geopolitical situation in Afghanistan, economic breakdowns in the Middle East and North Africa and the strict control of international mobility in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
      António Vitorino, Director General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and former European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs (1999-2004)
      Vitorino underlined that migration challenges are “universal” and that the COVID-19 pandemic “had a major impact”, because of closed borders, sanitary measures that stranded migrants in countries of transit and because of the increase of human trafficking. At the same time, during the lockdowns “migrant workers have been on the front-line” in the European distribution chains. “They played a key-role”, as the movement of seasonal workers in agricultural sector showed: “Now it is crucial to ensure equal access to vaccines and to integrate all migrants into the national vaccination systems”, the former European Commissioner urged.
      All these universal challenges “have to be addressed through a strong cooperation, not just among EU Member States, but also with the countries of origin”. Considering the recent events in Afghanistan, even if there is a perception of a new incoming crisis, the Director General of IOM underlined that “for the moment we do not see a massive flow of migrants” and that “it is more urgent to face the situation in the whole region”.
      A distorted perception of migratory flows is a common problem for European citizens and politicians. For example, about the final destination of these flows: “In Africa, eight migrants out of ten move from one country to another and only the 16 per cent of them tries to reach Europe”, Vitorino explained. Another example is the fact that “the vast majority of asylum seekers worldwide is hosted by low- and middle-income countries“, not by wealthy countries. Also the perception of the problem concerning the situation of irregular migration in Europe does not match the reality of events: “The 60 per cent of people who are now irregular arrived in the EU in a regular way, but they did not have access to a process of regular integration“. The former European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs stressed out that “it is not correct to consider this issue as a consequence of external borders’ weakness”.
      Blanca Garcés, Pol Morillas and Emmanuel Comte at the EU IDEA event (October 15, 2021)
      As Corinne Balleix, member of the Working Group on Migration at the Jacques Delors Institute, pointed out that “there is a need for a reform in the field of asylum, with an increased solidarity among EU Member States”. Katariina Mustasilta, Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA), recalled the attention on “countries that are using migration as a tool to put pressure on the European Union”. The EU external borders’ situation is a matter of concern for the IOM Director, starting from the “increase of pushbacks from several Member States“, namely “illegal practices to prevent people from seeking asylum, which are against the international laws”. But it is also “unacceptable” that some governments exploits asylum seekers, putting their lives at risk”, as it is happening at the external borders with Belarus: “We are ready to help and support people who are in this no man’s land”, Vitorino added.
      In conclusion of the event, Emmanuel Comte, Senior Research Fellow at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, underlined the role of IOM in “studying the different approaches to migration in Europe”. IOM Director General Vitorino replied that “our contribution is to give evidence and facts, in order to address migration challenges through serious policies“. From the inter-institutional cooperation with the EU, the African Union and the UN in humanitarian crisis, to the engagement with local authorities and NGOs, but also “the responses to human mobility caused by natural disasters and climate change”, Vitorino concluded.
      [embedded content]

      Addressing the current challenges, António Vitorino (IOM Director General) gave a speech during an event organized by the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs: “It is unacceptable that governments can exploit asylum seekers”